Preview:

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Opinion
MICHIGAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS and SCHOOL RELATED PERSONNEL, AFT, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________________ BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH YOUNG, J.

Chief Justice:

Justices:

Clifford W. Taylor

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman

FILED JULY 16, 2008

No. 133819

In this case, we must decide if the home addresses and telephone numbers of University of Michigan employees sought through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request are exempt from disclosure under FOIA's privacy exemption.1 We hold that employees' home addresses and telephone numbers meet both prongs of FOIA's privacy exemption because that information is "of a personal nature" and its disclosure would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of an

1

MCL 15.243(1)(a).

individual's privacy." In reaching this conclusion, we reexamine the definition of "information of a personal nature" set forth by this Court in Bradley v Saranac Community Schools Bd of Ed,2 and conclude that it unnecessarily limited the intended scope of that phrase. We cure this deficiency and revise that definition to encompass information of an embarrassing, intimate, private, or confidential nature. We conclude that employees' home addresses and telephone numbers are information of an embarrassing, intimate, private, or confidential nature. Disclosure of this information would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy" in this case primarily because the core purposes of FOIA would not be advanced by its disclosure to plaintiff. With both prongs of the privacy exemption satisfied, we hold that the University of Michigan employees' home addresses and telephone numbers are exempt from disclosure. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the circuit court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendants is reinstated. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Michigan Federation of Teachers submitted a FOIA request to defendant University of Michigan's chief FOIA officer seeking numerous items of information that defendant possessed regarding every University of Michigan employee. The information sought included first and last names, job title,

compensation rate, and work address and telephone number. Two additional items

2

455 Mich 285; 565 NW2d 650 (1997).

2


of information sought by plaintiff, which are the subject of this appeal, are the employees' home addresses and telephone numbers. Defendant timely responded to the FOIA request and provided nearly all the information plaintiff sought. With respect to the home addresses and

telephone numbers, defendant released the information of 20,812 employees who had given defendant their permission to publish their home addresses and telephone numbers in the University of Michigan's faculty and staff directory. Defendant did not turn over the home addresses and telephone numbers of the remaining 16,406 employees who had withheld permission to publish that information in the directory. Thus, defendant denied the FOIA request in part, relying on the privacy exemption and stating that the information's release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of these employees' privacy. Plaintiff filed suit in the Washtenaw Circuit Court seeking to compel the release of the remaining home addresses and telephone numbers. The parties filed cross-motions for summary disposition. Defendant attached to its motion six affidavits from employees who did not want their home addresses and telephone numbers released to the public. Some of the affiants attested that the release of this information would threaten their own or their family's safety. The circuit court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition. It ruled that the employees' home addresses and telephone numbers were information of a personal nature and that "one would be hard pressed to argue that

3


disclosure `contributes significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.'" The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court in an unpublished opinion per curiam.3 Relying on Bradley, the panel held that home addresses and

telephone numbers were not "information of a personal nature" because they did not reveal intimate or embarrassing details of an individual's private life, even when considered against the "customs, mores, or ordinary views of the community." It also held that no caselaw supported the proposition that public employees' home addresses and telephone numbers were items of personal information,4 and that in those reported cases where home addresses were held to be exempt from disclosure under the privacy exemption the plaintiffs had sought disclosure of addresses to access other information that was personal.5 The panel, however, recognized that certain employees might have legitimate reasons to avoid disclosure of their personal information. Relying on Tobin, it ruled that on remand defendant "may determine whether any of its Michigan Federation of Teachers and School Related Personnel, AFT, AFL-CIO v Univ of Michigan, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 22, 2007 (Docket No. 258666). Id. at 3, citing Tobin v Civil Service Comm, 416 Mich 661, 671; 331 NW2d 184 (1982), and State Employees Ass'n v Dep't of Mgt & Budget, 428 Mich 104, 124; 404 NW2d 606 (1987). Id., citing Mager v Dep't of State Police, 460 Mich 134; 595 NW2d 142 (1999); Detroit Free Press, Inc v Dep't of State Police, 243 Mich App 218; 622 NW2d 313 (2000); Clerical-Technical Union of Michigan State Univ v Michigan State Univ Bd of Trustees, 190 Mich App 300; 475 NW2d 373 (1991).
5 4 3

4


employees not included in the directory have demonstrated `truly exceptional circumstances' to prevent disclosure of names, addresses, and telephone numbers." Judge Wilder concurred with the majority's decision under Bradley, but raised two points. First, he suggested that Bradley's reading of the statutory language was inconsistent with its plain meaning and was worthy of reexamination. Second, he questioned whether the advent of the national do-notcall registry6 and the rising nationwide problem of identity theft had significantly altered the "customs, mores, or ordinary views of the community" concerning the disclosure of personal identifying information since the Bradley Court decided the issue in 1997. Defendant filed an application seeking leave to appeal, which this Court granted.7

6 7

Pub L 108-82,

Download MICHIGAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS V UNIVERSITY OF MICH.pdf

Michigan Law